MedStar Authors catalog › Details for: Revascularization of radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis with carotid endarterectomy vs. carotid artery stenting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]
Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Revascularization of radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis with carotid endarterectomy vs. carotid artery stenting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]

by Jonnalagadda, Anil K.
Citation: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2018 Jan 31.Journal: Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.Published: 2018ISSN: 1878-0938.Full author list: Giannopoulos S; Texakalidis P; Jonnalagadda AK; Karasavvidis T; Giannopoulos S; Kokkinidis DG.UI/PMID: 29422277.Subject(s): IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDInstitution(s): MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment(s): Medicine/General Internal MedicineActivity type: Journal Article.Medline article type(s): Journal Article | ReviewOnline resources: Click here to access online Digital Object Identifier: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2018.01.014 (Click here) Abbreviated citation: Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Jan 31.Local Holdings: Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present.Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The incidence of carotid artery stenosis after head and neck radiation is anticipated to rise due to the increasing survival of patients with head and neck malignancies. It remains unclear whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) is the best treatment strategy for radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis.Abstract: MATERIALS & METHODS: This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central until July 20, 2017. A meta-analysis of random effects model was conducted. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity.Abstract: RESULTS: Five studies and 143 patients were included. Periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and death rates were similar between the two revascularization approaches. However, the risk for cranial nerve (CN) injury was higher in the CEA group (OR: 7.09; 95% CI: 1.17-42.88; I<sup>2</sup>=0%). CEA was associated with lower mortality rates after a mean follow-up of 50months (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.97; I<sup>2</sup>=0%). No difference was identified in long-term restenosis rates between CEA and CAS.Abstract: CONCLUSIONS: Patients with radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of periprocedural stroke, MI and death. However, patients treated with CEA have a higher risk for periprocedural CN injuries and a lower risk for long-term mortality.Abstract: Copyright (c) 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Powered by Koha